1987 PLP 2389 (CLC)

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1987. QURBAN SADIQ IKRAM. J.‑‑Facts necessary for decision of this appeal are briefly stated below::_ Ch. Khan Muhammad and his brother Ch. Akhtar Ali filed suit for possession through pre‑emption of land measuring 235 Kanals 9 Marlas against Mst. Halima Bibi and others in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Lahore on 22‑5‑1979. The defendants put in appearance and resisted the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge on 12‑3‑1980 framed issues and adjourned the case for evidence on behalf of plaintiffs to 15‑6‑1980.On that date ‑plaintiffs' evidence was not present. There was request for adjournment. It was allowed and the suit was adjourned to 15‑10‑1980 for plaintiffs' evidence. On that date also plaintiffs' evidence was not available. It was, therefore, adjourned to 4‑2‑1981 as requested. The evidence was not present on that date also. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 18‑5‑1981 for evidence. The presiding officer had relinquished charge on that date. The Reader of the Court, therefore, adjourned the suit for plaintiffs' evidence to 13‑9‑1981. The suit was transferred to the Court of Judge Small Cause Lahore who on 13‑9‑1981 adjourned the suit to 6‑12‑1981 for plaintiffs' evidence. On that date the plaintiffs had no evidence. The suit was, therefore, adjourned on the request of the plaintiffs for their evidence to 6‑3‑1982 and again to 30‑5‑1982. The plaintiffs did not bring any evidence on 30‑5‑1982. They were allowed last opportunity to produce evidence on 27‑9‑1982 subject to payment of Rs. 50 as costs. The plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence on 27‑9‑1982. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. closed the plaintiffs' evidence and proceeded to decide the suit forthwith. As there was no evidence to prove superior right of pre‑emption of the plaintiffs the learned Civil Judge dismissed their suit with costs. Hence this appeal.

2. We have carefully gone through all the interim orders in the suit. The plaintiffs without any reasonable cause failed to produce any evidence, oral or documentary, in the suit in spite of the fact that they were allowed six opportunities by the lower Court. The only ground urged in the memorandum of appeal was that the impugned order was harsh and unjust. As is apparent from the above narration of facts the learned Civil Judge allowed many opportunities to the plaintiffs to produce evidence but they failed to comply with the orders of the Court. The impugned order can, therefore, not be considered as harsh or unjust. In fact the impugned order was proper and no exception can be taken to that. In our view the lower Court should not have given so many number of adjournments to the plaintiffs for evidence. The adjournments were allowed unduly and cannot be appreciated. Such like adjournments are cause of delay in final decision of cases in lower Courts. The learned counsel for the appellants felt difficulty to assail the impugned order before us. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. / K‑22/L Appeal dismissed.